We at Human-Stupidity.com fail to appreciate that. Maybe we are too humanly-stupid to understand. Or maybe we do not fall prey to mystical superstitious thinking that is the driving force of the child porn witch hunt.

“merely having possession and viewing images such as this does victimize and hurt the individual portrayed in the image.” This is some mystical religious thinking. Like in Voodoo. And note, this was said by a respectable lawyer to appease a judge. And this logic is used over and over, for example by Australian Government web sites.

Vodoo logic

Child porn Voodoo logic

You stick a needle into a Vodoo doll’s arm. The person you curse will be hurt on the arm.
The vodoo doll symbolizes a person, and that person’s will get injured in the same place where you stuck the needle.

Someone possesses a photo of a child, in the form of 0’s and 1’s in a computer file. When s/he looks at the photo, the individual depicted in the photo gets victimized and hurt.

Voodoo logic applied to murder and terrorism

While I can appreciate that creating or distributing child porn victimizes children, I cannot agree that looking for, viewing, or collecting child porn actually victimizes anyone. If you were to apply the same reasoning to any other crime, then looking at a photo of any crime would be re-victimizing someone. Using the same reasoning, anyone who looks for, views images or video footage of 9/11 or nazi war crimes, or autopsy photos, etc, would be guilty of having re-victimized people. If the simple act of viewing an image of someone is harmful, then perhaps an approprate punishment would be to simply take a photo of the perpetrator in jail, then set them free, but have some look at the photo that was taken while they were in jail. ”
Dude” commenting at Examining the Effects of Child Pornography

Dude, you are hilarious. Having people look at photos of themselves in jail to re-victimize them with their jail term. Priceless!

Studying child sex offenders isn’t easy. […] It’s hard because sexual offenses against children are without a doubt the most culturally, emotionally, and politically charged of all offenses, particularly in North America, and researchers (and journalists) who are willing to take a more objective, critical, and/or scientific view of these offenses and offenders, are often attacked for their trouble. Take one of the questions the Swiss study considered:

Are people who consume child pornography different from those who sexually offend against a child?

So far so good. Open minded article, wants to seriously analyze child porn issues. But wait: now he falls under the voodo spell, too:

Many may feel like this distinction isn’t worth making. Watching child pornography is, in several ways, offending against a child even if the viewer never comes in physical contact with a child. Certainly watching child porn is a re-victimization of the child in the film. Examining the Effects of Child Pornography

We were seriously doubting our sanity. Maybe we at Human-Stupidity, like Mr Smith who had one single CP photo, really need our misguided brain repaired. Even if we don’t consume child porn, maybe for purely educational purposes, to remedy our human-stupitiy, we should join Smith’s “probationary term that will require Smith to take part in the province’s sexual offender assessment and treatment program” (Senior gets jail time for single image of CP)

Maybe we, at Human-Stupidity.com are the only dumb insane people in this world who don’t understand this infallible logic: “Certainly watching child porn is a re-victimization of the child in the film”.

But the spell was broken, and our trust into our sanity was re-instated, when we ran across this irreverant and refreshing comment

“Certainly watching child porn is a re-victimization of the child in the film.”

“Certainly watching child porn is a re-victimization of the child in the film”.

This repeated exposure almost destroyed our trust into our own intelligence. Somehow constant repetition of voodoo logic brainwashes the average person into believing such NONSENSE: “Certainly watching child porn is a re-victimization of the child in the film”.

Unfortunately, the belief in this nonesense guides entire nations’ and the United Nation’s policy towards the world wide child porn witch hunt.

Australian Law Makers’ logic

Analogy #1

Analogy #2

Not a victimless crime: The accessibility of child pornography or child abuse images on the Internet raises the question of the relationship between the viewing of such images and actual child abuse off-line by the offender concerned. It is agreed that the very act of accessing child pornography makes the offender a party to child sexual abuse. As the UK Sentencing Panel observed: ‘Possession of child pornography is not (as some have argued) a victimless offence’. [2.5] Child Pornography Law (New South Wales, Australia)

Not a victimless crime: The accessibility of child abuse images on the internet

infant shaking, infant beating, infant throwing caught on nanny-cams

children suffering serious injuries in accidents

children being knocked out in fighting sports like boxing and Thai boxing

raises the question of the relationship between the viewing of such images and actual child abuse off-line by the offender concerned. It is agreed that the very act of accessing child abuse videos above makes the offender a party to child sexual abuse. As the UK Sentencing Panel observed: ‘Possession of child abuse videos as above is not (as some have argued) a victimless offence’.

Not a victimless crime: The accessibility of depictions of terrorism, mayhem and murderon the Internet raises the question of the relationship between the viewing of such images and actual terrorism, mayhem and murder off-line by the offender concerned. It is agreed that the very act of accessing depictions of terrorism, mayhem and murder makes the offender a party to terrorism, mayhem and murder. As the UK Sentencing Panel observed: ‘Possession of depictions of terrorism, mayhem and murderis not (as some have argued) a victimless offence’. [2.5]

Human-Stupidity.com Analysis

We understand your rage

We understand that some readers will be fuming with anger, reading our “defense of pedophiles, child abuse, and child abusers”. We almost fell prey to the world wide child porn hysteria voodoo logic brainwashing. It is based on 2 fallacies

confusing the crime with depiction of a crime:
You watch a movie of a plane flying into the World Trade Center. Therefore you are a terrrorist and revictimizing 3000 people who died

Confusing child pornography and “child pornography”. Confusing “child porn” as defined in the old days (involving a “real child under 12″ and “real porn with real penetrative sex” and “modern child porn” which might be as harmless as a 22 year old (that looks “apparently underage” like she might be only 17 years old) non-nude in leotards dancing while gyrating her hips provocatively). Can you understand now we insist that lots of modern so called “child porn” has no victim at all and is not offensive to sex positive people.

Can watching a photo or video cause harm to a far away “victim” that is unaware of the watcher?

Examples:

Someone downloads and watches child porn, with 16 year olds, produced legally in Holland 30 years ago. The act of watching a movie in the USA somehow causes a jolt in the now 46 year old person in Holland and victimizes her!? Human-Stupidity.com verdict: Scientifically impossible.

Someone downloads and watches a child porn photo from the 1950íes. The persons depicted already died 20 years ago. Would their mortal soul be victimized, be it in heaven, hell, or purgatory? Maybe their soul keeps constant watch about all copies of their photos? Human-Stupidity.com is too ignorant about religious claims of life after death. Verdict: Scientifically it is impossible for a dead person to get harmed by someone’s copying of a computer file

Someone downloads and watches a copy of a legal American porn movie with Little Lupe who was 19 years old but looked under 18. This is child porn by European and Australian laws. Little Lupe will happily earn a commission from the person’s subscription fee. We fail to understand how Little Lupe would be a victim! She is a consenting adult and made a conscious carreer choice and is profiting from people downloading her films.”Apparently underage” laws were struck down by US courts for violating the civil rights of young looking adults by preventing them from participation in legal porn movies (for “apparently looking underage” though over 18. Verdict: the adult “victim” benefits and profits from downloading. No victimization

Definitional issues: Definitions of child pornography can vary considerably, both in a legal context from one jurisdiction to another, and between legal and non-legal approaches to the subject. One source of ambiguity is that the legal definition of a ‘child’ varies between and within jurisdictions for various purposes. In Australia, child pornography legislation in some jurisdictions defines ‘child’ as a person under, or who appears to be under 16 (NSW, Queensland, South Australia, and Western Australia), in others as a person under, or who appears to be under 18 years of age (Commonwealth, Tasmania, Victoria, the ACT and the Northern Territory). [3.1.2] Child Pornography Law (Australia)

The cover of “Der Spiegel” the most prestigious news magazine of Germany. May 1977. A young adolescent girl nude. Millions of adults, adolescents, children have seen the photo at news stands in Germany. Today this constitutes child porn. Human-Stupidity added the black bars, hiding breast and genital areas, so the poor girl would not be victimized while we look at the photos. If there were no bars, the now over 50 year old, 5000 miles away, would suddenly feel victimized? Verdict: no scientifically explainable, 5000 miles away, she would even notice we are looking at her photo.

The hypothesis is actually scientifically testable. Just have people, in the US, look at her photo at random intervals, and have an observer at the girl “victim’s”verify if she feels victimized at exactly the right time when someone watches the photo. James Randi has a US$ 1.000.000 bounty offer to anyone that can prove such paranormal phenomena.

Pictures of grave violence against children are perfectly legal

There are no claims that watching TV surveillance camera videos victimizes babies. Videos of nannies mistreating babies, shaking toddlers in a way they can suffer permanent spinal cord damage can be seen on youtube.

Watching depictions of child baseball victimizes children

Baseball and softball – Nearly 117,000 children and adolescents ages five to 14 were treated in hospital emergency rooms for baseball-related injuries, and nearly 26,000 children and adolescents ages five to 14 were treated for softball-related injuries. Baseball also has the highest fatality rate among sports for children and adolescents ages five to 14, with three to four persons dying from baseball injuries each year. Sports Injury Statistics (Children’s Hospital Boston)

Everyone probably has seen a muslim kidnapping victim beheading movie. Each time we see such movies, the beheaded gets victimized again. Is that not the same logic?

Thai Boxing 15y/o vs. 16 y/o

Thai boxing is cruel. No matter how much you train, if you block a roundhouse kick with your shin, both fighters’ shins will get bruised. Knocking out a 15 y/o or 16 y/o is child abuse. Watching this again, you will victimize the kids again.

Similar articles about wymyn’s studies, about femimist faulty thinking and logic

67 Comments

AB says:

Like or Dislike: 21

Excellent article.Very good points.Another thing is that teenagers/adolescents are not children.Studies such as those by Robert Epstein show that the so called “adults” vastly under-estimate the abilities of teenagers.In reality they are quite mature.Also,throughout history teenage sexuality has been accepted.For example Romeo was 14 and Juliet 13.It’s only in the modern times that people suddenly lost their minds.
Also this so called “trauma” is a myth created due to False Memories(youtube it),negative programming about human sexuality and evil politics .http://criminaljustice.change.org/blog/view/tonight_on_msnbc_witch_hunt

Matt says:

Like or Dislike: 01

An interesting article, with some very good points. I do think your ultimate analysis is flawed, however. You seem to be restricting your interpretation of ‘victimizing’ to a conveniently literal one, and you can correctly infer by doing this that there is no logical way that a child in the photo can become a victim again because somebody somewhere is looking at it. However, I think your argument is blinkered.

Child porn is just that; material made for the distribution and enjoyment of others. The correlation to that and ‘watching the 9/11 attacks’ is hopelessly absurd. Every person who accesses and views child porn (by which I mean grown adults engaging sexually with a child), creates the market in which this stuff is made and distributed. It’s simple supply and demand stuff, really. Not hard to understand. So by proxy, the viewer is complicit in the creation of the image and consequently the abuse that image contains, because they are part of the reason that image was created.

Which leaves the really gross child porn for which someone forks over money.

Still, in every single other wake of life, possession of pictures does not get punished, but rather the perpetrator.

And there are so many other ways how children get seriously damaged for life, and nobody cares:
*pregnant women who drink alcohol

* women who overfeed their kids to be obese and diabetic for life (see my articles on ‘child food porn’)

* dangerous sports like football, downhill skying that leave many children maimed for life

However, I think your argument is blinkered.

Child porn is just that; material made for the distribution and enjoyment of others. The correlation to that and ‘watching the 9/11 attacks’ is hopelessly absurd. Every person who accesses and views child porn (by which I mean grown adults engaging sexually with a child), creates the market in which this stuff is made and distributed. It’s simple supply and demand stuff, really. Not hard to understand. So by proxy, the viewer is complicit in the creation of the image and consequently the abuse that image contains, because they are part of the reason that image was created.

Matt says:

Like or Dislike: 00

So by that logic, Colin Blanchard, the man who owned the “free photos” sent to him by Vanessa George, who abused children in the nursery she worked at, should “go unpunished”, despite the fact they were being made for her?

Again, you are using extremely selective logic here to substantiate your argument. “Free” doesn’t equate to “on Limewire”. Pictures can be created for ‘free distribution’ but the marketplace may still create the demand that causes the supply.

Do you have any facts to substantiate your comments about “most child porn” or is that – again – just convenient speculation?

Anonymous says:

Like or Dislike: 10

Matt,what you are saying makes no sense.How can free photos create a market ?Who gains if there is no money to be made.And besides that,is there no free will?And if it the photos are made for private enjoyment,then they can be made privately and secretly,no need to distribute.In fact,if enjoyment is the reason then people should be encouraged to distribute artificial child porn so that there is a substitute for real children so real children can be prevented from abuse.

And adolescent posing should not be considered child porn at all.Adolescents are not children.It is undeniable that many are punished for possessing such pictures.Even cartoon porn of “seemingly” minor gets punished.Why so keen to punish?

In short, go punish those who actually abuse children ,rather than punishing anyone who you can catch and is remotely related.

admin says:

None of what you say makes sense. In fact, all you are doing is spamming Human-Stupidity’s blog by leaving a mindless copy and paste argument.

The example of vanessa george is actualy a COUNTER ARGUMENT against your position. The supply and demand is clear and direct in that case. It’s entirely speculative in most other cases.

Why should a man go to jail for looking at pictures that a 15 year old girl herself has taken and uploaded. Maybe she hates ‘pedos’ as much as most brainwashed girls her age and she uploaded them for the benefit of 15 year old boys.

Why should a man go to jail for looking at pictures or movies taken years or decades ago (often when such ‘child porn’ was entirely legal – for example the ‘Channel Seventeen’ teen porn franchise? What ‘supply and demand’ is there here? Surely such archive material should be encouraged if the aim is to restrict current supply?

Clearly, this child does not want a video of her face being caved in circulated and watched by millions as entertainment on the internet. Yet it is not only perfectly legal for me to view it, the website itself is legal and the webmaster makes money from publishing such videos. There are lots of other similar ‘bitch fight’ videos featuring young girls being bullied. In most of these videos it is clear that the presence of other children filming the bullying actually encourages it. Therefore there is a direct and irrefutable causal link between my watching these videos and the abuse and bullying taking place now and in the future. Why do I face being raped in jail if I watch a 17 year old girl screaming in orgasmac delight in a 1980’s porn movie, but I am free to watch a video of a 14 year old girl having her face stomped into the ground, while she clearly objects to the realisation that her humiliation and misery is going to be replayed millions of times on the internet, and her bully stomps on her face even harder knowing that she is being filmed and is a ‘star’? Oh, I remember. Because your supply and demand argument is bullshit, and middle-aged feminists don’t give a fuck about real child abuse, because they are not sexually threatened by it.

Jesse says:

Sorry for possible repost, I didn’t have time to read all of the comments here. I think your argument is weak for two main reasons.

If someone is found possessing child porn (hereafter CP), they came by it one of two ways. 1 they took the shot; 2 they got it from someone who took the shot (or some other form of distribution). If you took the photo, you DID victimize a child. If you accept the photo, you are creating demand and incentivizing the product of a victim-crime. Now, while the act of possessing/viewing is “victimless,” in order to possess/view at one point you had to receive it. It is similar to accepting stolen goods, you didnt steal yourself but you created a motivation for a thief to steal, ultimately (ie not directly, consciously or at the time.) the thief stole for you. Even if you dont pay for CP with money, the distributer is in some way pandering to a popular market. If you aid in sustaining that market, you aid in sustaining demand (of some kind. often abstract/non-monetary). Now this can be applied to other things as a substitution type counter argument (as used in this article), but to use 9/11 (and many of the other counterpoints) is kind of misleading. CP is considered to be obscene, ie it serves no purposeful expression or benefit AND is generally offensive in nature AND criminal in result (“incites” criminal action of sex with, caused by lust for, a child) and in creation (involves a victim, unlike other “adult” porn). This is not so in many of your counterpoints. 9/11 video=history; kid gets injured by accident=not generally offensive. nanny-cam abuse=warning to other parents. These examples are not obscene. IF the child abuse were done with the primary purpose of videoing it and putting it on youtube to get view counts, then the people watching it WOULD be complicit in the abuse. CP itself is (nearly)universally offensive and holds no other value to society AND by its nature requires a victim to be created.

Viewing=victimization? as said above, in order to view, you must receive; in effect, by willingly receiving, you incentivize. But I think the victimization by viewing goes like this:

Children can’t consent.
All sex acts with them are rape.
CP vids/pics are just vids/pics of traumatic childhood Rape
Many [actual] rape victims are ashamed of having been raped
Therefore it is humiliating for the victim to have their rape be seen by strangers world-wide; It is traumatizing that people get sexual pleasure from an incident whose weight the victim will feel for the rest of their life. Its not that they will know that John Smith of 1234 Urmomsahore Street, LA, California is watching their rape; its that SOMEONE is watching their rape.

PS great site you have here. Agree with almost everything on here and what I disagree with only makes me think very deeply about WHY I hold a differing opinion even after evidence against it has been presented.

Jesse says:

Like or Dislike: 11

Your reply belies why terrorism videos are legal and kiddie porn vids aren’t: to stop the damage caused by consuming/demanding videos of terrorism we would have to make people not watch them. since terrorism is such a “holy shit I need to watch that because it is history/an indication of the state of our global civilization” video, the only way to stop consumption of it would be to stop supplying it (ban on news reporting, which is entirely unacceptable)

To stop damage caused by consuming/demanding kiddie porn vids we would need to stop the consumption and demand for it. since it is a “I want to see this cause Im horny” video, de-incentivizing (word? lol) its consumption is REASONABLY possible and causes far less damage than a total media blackout that would be required to de-incentivize terrorism.

TL; DR: Videos of terrorism are integral to understanding our culture and, someday, our history. kiddie porn is videos of children being raped. de-incentivizing terrorism videos would have much more colateral damage than the same for kiddie porn.

admin says:

Like or Dislike: 20

Many logical fallacies in your argument:
thanks to language distortion, kiddie porn can be 17 year old nudes.
or 15 year olds who willingly take their own photos. And you think you protect them by putting the 15 year old to jail for photos of herself
all kiddie porn taken more then 10 years ago could be grandfathered. Nobody will be abused because of it. All has happened long ago
what about the guy that filmed himself masturbating at age 12 and no is facing a minimum 2 year jail sentence for possession of video of himself

what about the porn that was legal in the 70’s, like 15 or 16 y hardcore porn from Holland, or nude page 3 girls from Britain. And now they raid video stores in Germany for movies that were legal 20 years ago. Who is getting abused here?
terrorism is rare in the US, but check Iraq or Afghanistan.

I need to watch that because it is history/an indication of the state of our global civilization” video, the only way to stop consumption of it would be to stop supplying it (ban on news reporting, which is entirely unacceptable)

I quoted a University professor who had to watch child porn because he wanted to write scientific research about it. He is in jail now. I consider this entirely unacceptable.

raton says:

Like or Dislike: 00

I plead guilty to a possession charge (downloaded 3 illegal images) almost a decade ago. I never abused anyone, but I now have to register for life and endure living under a stigma which defines how others treat me. Thank you for having a lack of stupidity.

admin says:

Like or Dislike: 20

Jesse, watching child porn seems to reduce child abuse crimes (see my post on Dr. Diamond’s research). It seems that people who are curious and horny often manage to masturbate with child porn and thus lose the pressing horniness and desire to look at real children.

So all your statements are based on unproven assumptions.

You also fail to explain how a girl that photographs herself nude, or an adult guy who filmed himself masturbating when he was 12, are heinous criminals victimizing whom? themselves? And now the need to go to jail to punish them for victimizing themselves?

Furthermore I have the example of a serious college professor, in jail because he downloaded child porn for research and a book on child porn.

Jesse :to use 9/11 (and many of the other counterpoints) is kind of misleading. CP is considered to be obscene, ie it serves no purposeful expression or benefit AND is generally offensive in nature AND criminal in result (“incites” criminal action of sex with, caused by lust for, a child) and in creation (involves a victim, unlike other “adult” porn). This is not so in many of your counterpoints. 9/11 video=history; kid gets injured by accident=not generally offensive. nanny-cam abuse=warning to other parents. These examples are not obscene. IF the child abuse were done with the primary purpose of videoing it and putting it on youtube to get view counts, then the people watching it WOULD be complicit in the abuse. CP itself is (nearly)universally offensive and holds no other value to society AND by its nature requires a victim to be created.

admin says:

Like or Dislike: 20

Raton, victims of persecution for mere possession of pictures should come out of the closet. I hope more victims of the child porn witch hunt come forward and discuss their fate here. Or would that be in violation of of probation?

Bullies that beat up dozens of children, cause permanent injuries and life long trauma get shorter prison terms and no registration. Neither do arsonists. Even abusers of infants often get shorter jail sentences then those who possess a few photos. And photos don’t need to be of real abuse of real children, sensual photos of adolescents are enough to get long jail sentences.

admin says:

Like or Dislike: 00

There is so much humiliating stuff out on the internet. But nobody goes to jail for watching a blooper, a serious accident, a court case, even a nanny cam. I would not love to have itune videos of myself being abused by a nanny. So what?

Therefore it is humiliating for the victim to have their rape be seen by strangers world-wide; It is traumatizing that people get sexual pleasure from an incident whose weight the victim will feel for the rest of their life. Its not that they will know that John Smith of 1234 Urmomsahore Street, LA, California is watching their rape; its that SOMEONE is watching their rape.

PS great site you have here. Agree with almost everything on here and what I disagree with only makes me think very deeply about WHY I hold a differing opinion even after evidence against it has been presented.

@jessie I’m trying to get to grips with your first argument but there’s not much logic for me to get my teeth into.

You seem to be saying that it would be impossible to prevent the consumption of terrorist videos because people have an insatiable need to watch men having their heads sawn off in order to understand the human condition. Apparently, you think, on the other hand, that the vast majority of men can easily decide not to click on the thumbnail of the hot nubile 17? year old amateur while browsing a porn tube site.

Bizzarre.

No it’s quite simple. The reason we allow half the population of america to watch Nick Berg getting his head cut off, a video which was explicitly shot by the terrorists in order to damage western morale and support for the iraq war, is because such videos do not sexually threaten feminists, and women like yourself. A video of a 17 year old ‘child’ happily fucking, on the other hand, DOES threaten you, because lots of men would prefer to watch beautiful teens in porn than have actual sexual relationships with women like you.

I agree, Human-Stupidities examples of 9/11 are pretty poor, and leave himself open to arguments about such images being ‘historical’ or ‘newsworthy’, especially when there are hundreds of websites that legally show children being physically abused and bullied for no other reason but entertainment.

As far as what you appear to be saying regarding child porn laws not causing any great inconvenience in society – well you would say that – you’re a woman. You don’t surf for porn. Are you aware that in most of the world now you can go to jail for clicking on a single picture of a 30 year old woman dressed in school uniform or even a fictional anime cartoon girl in a sexy bikini? These laws criminilize 90% of the male population, I would say that is a utter crime against humanity, not just a slight inconvienience.

@Jessie There’s at least five other massive mistakes in your argument.

Firstly, the nature of the internet, and browsing the web, is that it is almost an extension of thought. In this sense, cp laws really are criminilizing thought, and spurious supply and demand arguments should not apply to thought – the ‘recieving stolen goods argument’ is not comparable as no real physical goods are handled. You could use the supply and demand argument to justify hidieous and draconian punishments against men if you go down this path – for example, ‘if men didn’t have dicks (demand) there would be no raped women or children (supply)’, therefore all men should have their penises removed.

Secondly, what constitutes child exploitation and sexual abuse is being defined by women, and the resulting laws are applying to men. Teenagers are regularly exploited and emotionally abused on reality shows and daytime chat shows such as Oprah Winfrey (watched mainly by women). Their wrecked emotional lives are laid bare as thinly disguised ‘edutainment’. What gives you the right to say that a 17 year old girl posing in a bikini is child exploitation, but a 14 year old girl being exhibited on Oprah as a freak, because she’s a drug addict or a ‘slut’ or whatever, is not exploitative?

Thirdly, the average age of consent around the world is 14 or 15. Yet I can go to jail for looking at a picture of a 17 year old posing sexily, let alone fucking. I can legally fuck a 16 year old in the UK (as in most of the world), yet if I take a photo of her aftwards I deserve to go to jail on the basis of your stupid supply and demand argument’??? WTF??
Even if the supply and demand had some force, it should only apply to videos or images that show a crime – ie a child below the age of consent engaging in a sexual act with an adult.

Fourthly, as Human-Stupidity pointed out, the evidence suggests that child porn REDUCES real child sexual abuse. In that case women like you, who argue for draconian child porn laws, should be prosecuted for aiding and abetting child abuse.

Fifthly, what you said about child porn not having any artistic merit. If present child porn laws in Europe were applied exhuastively, some of the greatest works of art ever made would be deemed child porn, and the mere viewing of them enough to send a person to jail. For example, reading romeo and juliet, or any looking at any number of masterpieces by the Rennaisance painters and sculpters (for example, Botticelli’s ‘David’.

Alan Vaughn says:

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 40

Jesse you said:
“Children can’t consent.
All sex acts with them are rape.
CP vids/pics are just vids/pics of traumatic childhood Rape”

Well when I was about 15 yrs old I had CONSENTING sex with a 13 yr old girl, who by the way: INSTIGATED the encounter and the relationship I had with her that lasted for a few weeks.
According to you this was rape!! ???
Initially it was ME that didn’t want to do what we did, but she soon tried various means (from her basic female intuition, as neither of us had even heard of porn, let alone ‘cp’ back in the early 1970’s), that finally ‘aroused’ my interest among other things. She wasn’t an overly attractive girl, but she certainly knew some things about the ancient and instinctive art of ‘flirting’…
You said: “Children can’t consent.
All sex acts with them are rape.”…
So according to your logic: who raped who here?
I can assure you that after this little liaison, I did NOT feel that I had been raped or in any way VIOLATED or exploited!! It was one of the more pleasant moments I can still recall over my entire 52 yrs of all moments locked away somewhere in the deepest archives of my mind actually!
As for my little friend, I know that she did not regret it and kept chasing me for more of the same, for many months afterwards. I only broke our friendship, on the grounds of the teasing and snide comments made by a few of my buddies in the school yard, who eventually found out that I was ‘going steady’ with her. Of course as I grew older, I realized that they were merely jealous of us.
Thank God no photos were ever taken of us, because I would probably be looking at prison now and ‘rightly so': according to your DUMB, feminazi logic!

Get a LIFE Jesse.
Sex is just a normal, natural human function, which most people get to do at various stages of their lives.
Yes even children love sex Jesse!
Their bodies, instincts and natural feelings don’t know anything about the law, nor do their thoughts of all things pleasant, beautiful and loving…

[…] think that most literature and legislation child porn sound like bad jokes ( Voodoo science of child pornography laws). Most of the texts from this article were directly adapted from real texts for child pornography […]

[…] to be protected, by putting her husband in jail for a decade or two. Remember, each time someone looks at child pornography, the child is victimized. Even if the adolescent can be fully clothed in a movie, it still can be child pornography […]

[…] child porn, irrational drug prohibition witch hunts are based on victimization theories. These victimization theories are so outlandish, they make the medieval "theory that witches cause hail storm" look […]

[…] everyone gains reproductive advantage by restricting other people’s sexual liberty.Finding Victims Where There Are NoneIn the above YouTube video, we see a happy couple with conservative attitudes […]

passing by says:

Like or Dislike: 20

If pictures are created “on purpose”, this happens because it is impossible to find old pictures “on the marketplace” because all the existing pictures (even those that were legal 35 years ago) have been forbidden and are constantly removed from “the market”.
Every time the police seize existing pictures (that could be duplicated and traded for free), they thus create a markedplace for new pictures, which in turn means that the demand, if any, can only be satisfied by using new children as pornographic actors. This would not happen if private possession and non commercial trading were legal.
If it is true that the music industry has been severely damaged by private file sharing, this must of course also be true for the so-called “child porn industry”.

admin says:

Like or Dislike: 00

Every time the police seize existing pictures (that could be duplicated and traded for free), they thus create a markedplace for new pictures, which in turn means that the demand, if any, can only be satisfied by using new children as pornographic actors. This would not happen if private possession and non commercial trading were legal.

Thank you for the interesting comment. One more way how child porn laws contribute to child abuse.

carol says:

Like or Dislike: 02

Jesse is not talking about teenagers. Teenagers are not children. You are just taking his/her words and twisting them. She is talking children under the age of around 12 who are being brutally violated and even if it is not brutal is still a violation. Not pictures of babies in bathtubs and on the beach. WE mean people purposely taking erotic pictures of children and uploading them to the internet without permission. Teenagers have lots of hormones raging and the law of course is not recognizing that.I think the governments are off about that. And no one has said our laws are perfect. But children under the age of twelve are being victimized. they don’t know what is going on, let alone that pictures are being taken of them and put up for the world to see. That is pure exploitation of the young child and should be punished. There are also cases where child porn is viewed accidentally but that is really rare.I am cognizant that people have been prosecuted fro accidentally viewing it and that is unfortunate, but how can you distinguish between the people telling the truth and the liars. There are plenty of people who are caught and tell lies like “it was an accident” and “someone hacked my computer and put it on there.” People who view child porn usually seek it. Most of those videos and images are brutal and a child can be seen and or heard screaming and crying. Are you trying to deny that that is not out there? Should people be allowed to view it just because they are horny? Think about how that child feels. Read about the Russian girl Masha who was sexually abused for five years and want those images of her gone.

carol says:

Like or Dislike: 02

No one is denying that there are a lot of gruesome videos online, but that does not mean people who seek out images of the abuse of children are not gruesome too. It does not matter if a person likes seeing children be raped, which they call sex. What matters is the person in the video and the images is being abused. If you actually talk to victims of the abuse in the child rape videos;they feel violated just knowing people are watching it. If viewing child porn keeps perverts from abusing children fine, there should be virtual porn for that, but not use of real children. This is not about teenagers this is about CHILDREN as young as two months being brutalized and exploited. I’m not denying that SOME of the laws are too much, but some of them are not. Taking photos of one’s own child in the bathtub, and topless on the beach, and teens taking photos of themselves should not be considered a crime. I know there are teens being prosecuted for willingly taking pictures of themselves; I do not support that it’s just stupid. But the photos most viewers of child porn are going to jail for are none of the above. Just try and put yourself in the shoes of the children in the videos. Imagine being forced to do unthinkable acts on a daily basis and those images being traded for the world to see and people enjoying it. How would you personally feel? Or think of your most humiliating moments that and having people be able to see that…EVERYONE being able to see it.
I know you are going to bring up people begin beaten and killed on camera and I do not support that either, I said the law is not perfect. It needs to be revised not completely taken away.

carol says:

Like or Dislike: 02

This image on that magazine is from years ago when almost anything could go.An the child is set up in an erotic pose. If she is a child why is she being made a sexual object? If this is just about art why is she not just standing there in the nude NOT posing in a sexual way. Of course you are going to say it is not sexual but it is. Look at how her body is positioned, that is a pose used for seduction.
“Verdict: no scientifically explainable, 5000 miles away, she would even notice we are looking at her photo.”
Why does it matter if the girl knows who is individually viewing her photo? The fact is they are doing it and it is degrading. This particular photo was perfectly legal then, and the child is not being harmed. This particular child who is now a woman might not mind, but there are plenty who do. I have commented before on your articles and you should really hear the victims in child porn videos speak about how the viewing of the images and videos of their abuse hurts them just as much. IT does not matter if they can see the individual faces of people doing it. They know it is out there. Please read about the Russian girl Masha who was abused by her father. I’m sure there are other stories of child porn are similar to it.

No people should not be able to view child beatings, fights, and other brutal things for their own pleasure. If it is used as evidence to prosecute them and research fine and the same goes for child porn. Police and other tasks forces have to view it to find out who the victims are and also the abusers. This is not about teenagers willingly posing in pics and vids this is about children being brutalized.

Also you talked about people being biased when your entire website is biased. You only talk about the rights of men to harass women and view abuse of children. Nowhere on your website does it talk about children being actual victims, men who have ACTUALLY committed crimes and how women and men are not punished equally. You even put victims and rape in quotations as if it does not exist. It does happen to men,women, and children. Anyone can be victims and it truly offensive to suggest that it is not true. Also that rape was made up by feminists and sexual harassment is ignorant, before any of that was put in place the claims were not even taken seriously;REAL rape accusations. If I were to kidnap you and force a cucumber up your ass and friends of mine forced you to have anal and oral sex. Are you not a victim of rape? yes. so how can you say that others who face the same things and worse are not? How can you say it is made up?

admin says:

Like or Dislike: 20

I speak to help the victims of false accusations, of persecutions and prison for victimless crimes. And yes, I fight the advocates who overstep the limits and harm innocent bystanders, innocent sexting children, people who inadvertently posses photos etc.

There are plenty of advocates for victims of real forcible rape-rape, of real violent involuntary abuse. I wish them luck and success in their endeavor. I am all in favor of reducing, preventing, fighting, punishing REAL crime. But many of these advocates go past boundaries, abolish due legal process, fight computer files instead of child abuse, etc.

[…] need protection from sexual abuse, Australia’s supreme court recognized. According to the voodoo theory of child porn, each time someone looks at the cartoon, the cartoon figure will be victimized again. […]

[…] It does not matter that you are religious, never ever intended to see any porn.According to the voodoo theory of child pornography, the act of downloading and unintentional viewing by the religious Bible […]

alyssa says:

Like or Dislike: 00

That is untrue. People are creating child porn for money, not all of these people are even interested in the children. And there is a flaw in your argument. there is plenty of adult porn from 30 years ago, but don’t they still make porn today? It isn’t because it was taken off the web, it’s still there. People will always create it when there is a demand for it.

Kevin says:

Like or Dislike: 20

Rea this headline ” Man sentenced to 20 years in prison for possessing gruesome video.” Then the article would read something like this; Authorities have arrested a man for downloading a video called Three Guys One Hammer.” The video shows a real life killing of a man with a screwdriver. The comments usually jump on the bandwagon. For example:

User 335: This guy is sick, Lock em up in case he wants to screwdrive someone in the future.

Petedouchebiker455: Get the rope and hang this creep.

Reason441: It’s just a video

Petedouchebiker455: Wow look at this piece of shit defending murder.

Marieoblivio: He looks like a murderer. eww, Have fun in prison murderer.

also there are plenty of the nn sites that young girls can pose and get paid for no one is getting fucked.there is an interesting article in wiki leaks on the subject of cp by mr x revealing how exaggerated the cp industry is.

Larner says:

Like or Dislike: 10

If I’m a registered Klu Klux Klan member and I’m watching the Rodney King beating video while burning a cross in my backyard… Would I go to prison for hate crime and beating up Rodney King with a nightstick?

I mean, the mentality is correct, I enjoyed watching those cops whack him in the face with batons, I love it. I cheered for the cops and replayed it over and over again.

In your logic, if I decided to claim that I’m being victimized and extremely embarrassed by a jackass stunt video I made when I was 10 that ended up on the internet… Would I be able to throw people in jail for watching that trading the video? I mean I’m a child, and I felt like I’m being abused because these guys are entertained by me causing pain on myself… Are they going to go to prison for decades?

dukeSkyWalk3r says:

Like or Dislike: 20

I have a few questions relating to child pornography.
1. Did the US government start the “war” on eradicating child pornography?
2. Was child pornography prevalent before the “war” was waged by the US government?
3. Why does the US government believe that prosecuting those who merely view or possess such images/videos is a criminal? The video/image is a record of something that has ALREADY happened.
4. Does anyone think this whole cat and mouse game will end?
5. Does anyone think the quantity of child pornography has increased BECAUSE of the fight against it? Direct relationship?

No one knows if the federal agents assigned to this task are perverts or not. The FBI I hear has the largest collection of child pornography.

If someone watches so called child porn, the depicted “victim” gets remotely re-victimized. This is true even if the act happened 50 years ago and the depicted victim died of old age.

Victimizing child porn might be the nude photo of a 17 year old posing provocatively at a nude beach, or the movie of a 15 year old in leotards gyrating her hips.

Real commercial child porn production is probably pretty low, due to draconian punishments. But there is lots of child porn, because the nude cell phone self picture of any minor nowadays constitutes child porn. Photographing oneself engaging in legally allowed sex or masturbation also produces child porn.

Minors looking into the bathroom mirrors see live child porn all the time, if they photograph themselves then they victimize themselves.

The war on child porn is done by feminists (who want to eradicate all porn), religious zealots, and normal people who were taken in by the falsified scientific research about dangerousness of teenage sexuality

nobody says:

Like or Dislike: 00

There is almost nobody who “consumes” (an inappropriate term in the digital age, where this material is not consumed, but replicated endlessly) child pornography who pays for it. Images and videos that are created by adults are almost exclusively created by adults who were already engaged in active sexual relationships with children. They may try to sell the photos and videos they create, and MAY even find a buyer. But the buyer will either sit on the material forever or release it for free where it will be freely duplicated forever. Very few people would be stupid enough to buy child pornography, as it would easily be(and almost always will be) nothing more than a sting operation.

The vast majority of child pornography that is created today is in the form of recorded webcams and does not feature adults and children but single children or multiple children. Obviously people looking for this material are not interested in adults. There are adults who record themselves having sex with children but these types of videos are few and far between in comparison to the deluge of videos of horny teenagers on webcams.

In short there is almost NO financial market for child pornography and certainly no “industry”. The “child abuse industry” likely takes the form of human trafficking but I have no information on the prevalence of that geographically. I can, however, say that there is very little child pornography created from trafficked children these days.

To refute the previous poster’s assertion, people do NOT create child porn for money. they create it because they know it will make others jealous which inflates their own egos or to give back to an anonymous community that provided them with porn over the years. It is ridiculous to say that these people would not have sex with children if they weren’t making pornography, and therefore ridiculous to accuse the person who views that pornography of being involved in sexual activity with a child. I purposely choose not to use the word abuse because human sexuality is a complicated and diverse matter. It is not inherently harmful for someone under the age of 18 to be engaged in sexual activity.

There are more nanny cam child abuse videos, jackass child endangerment videos, child shooting and stoning videos for profit on the web then child porn for profit. (I did not check personally, but it makes sense).

Thomas says:

Like or Dislike: 00

I agree precisely with what Matt says (third comment from the top):

“An interesting article, with some very good points. I do think your ultimate analysis is flawed, however. You seem to be restricting your interpretation of ‘victimizing’ to a conveniently literal one, and you can correctly infer by doing this that there is no logical way that a child in the photo can become a victim again because somebody somewhere is looking at it. However, I think your argument is blinkered.

“Child porn is just that; material made for the distribution and enjoyment of others. The correlation to that and ‘watching the 9/11 attacks’ is hopelessly absurd. Every person who accesses and views child porn (by which I mean grown adults engaging sexually with a child), creates the market in which this stuff is made and distributed. It’s simple supply and demand stuff, really. Not hard to understand. So by proxy, the viewer is complicit in the creation of the image and consequently the abuse that image contains, because they are part of the reason that image was created.”

However, I think Matt’s ultimate conclusion is also flawed, or rather, does not elucidate the subject properly, on the basis that we’re failing to analyze the root of the problem: is *consensual* “underage” (term is relative in different regions) pornography, where the subject is precocious and well-aware of the implications of they are doing, really abuse at all?? Or are these people force-fed by society that they are “victims” until they themselves believe it? This is not a clear subject, very grey, but I believe there ARE plenty of cases that I can imagine (risking thoughtcrime here) where a juvenile consents and even desires to be, without coercion of any sort, being photographed in a sexual manner, and even desires these photographs to be seen indiscriminately by anyone, and/or initiates blatant, willing sexual advances on an adult. If anything, the adult is being abused, in my opinion, in this case.

Then, there are cases where children are *actually* abused, forced or reluctantly talked into doing something they believe is shameful, or do not properly understand. The law, in reality, operates on the presumption that children, or even anyone under 18 (I refuse to refer to a 17 year old as a “child”), cannot possibly properly understand the implications of what they’re doing. And that, of course, is where the law becomes arbitrary and blind. The ONLY thing wrong with child pornography, if we’re really talking about abuse here, is if it is a photograph of or a drawing depicting the exact instance or actual events leading up to a REAL person, being abused, taken advantage of, coerced, or otherwise unaware of what they’re doing. Since it is impossible to tell without contacting that individual, the law refuses to be anything other than arbitrary in this, because, realistically, there’s virtually no way to ensure the rightful distinction of actual cases of abuse via simple images or even a video, I’d imagine.

Still, this leads to unacceptable hysteria, where even Japanese anime porn (a culture where chronophilia is much more open and accepted, and such drawings depicting fictitious underage characters, even interacting with fictitious adults, are not illegal and distributed widely, even sold to youth), Western drawings doing the same, and anything else you can imagine where a real person is not involved, is considered child pornography and will land you on a sex offender list for life for possessing, in America anyway. This of course is a perversion of justice, where the “Voodoo science” paradigm wouldn’t even apply. Most countries aren’t as retarded as America in this sense, and are willing to reason with defendants when brought to trial over such things, like in the case of Sweden and some Japanese manga artist, I believe. But in cases here in America, and in Australia that I’ve read, people have actually been convicted for cartoon child pornography. That’s insane, I’m sorry. If you look at drawings of what is considered, say, lolicon in Japan, you MAY, arguably, have vague or distinct feelings of pedophilia (as I believe all humans do, especially men–where sexual attraction and beauty fetishizes youth), which may only apply to drawings, or may present themselves to you on very rare occasions in real depictions or encounters in life or say dreams… and yet, this same person, imagining it’s you, you may very well not have any preference for real children whatsoEVER, where the thought of any sort of relationship with one seems absurd and undesirable to you, yet still be able to possibly find a child attractive. To deny that such is possible, when it’s true, is ridiculous. To ostracize natural human psychology, is absurd. To imply that pedophilia has any bearing on who you are or your character whatsoever, i.e., a prediction that you are likely to take advantage of a child when opportunity arises, is like suggesting all men are (potential) rapists. So, you may even avoid children, be somewhat afraid of them and avoid showing affection to your own or your youngest family members, out of the stigma that you’d might be perceived as a pedophile (code word for child molester or abuser, in our society, which is not at ALL accurate). You may avoid even having children, out of respect of that fact that you have the ability to find a child attractive, and don’t want that kind of complication in your life, being self-conscious around your daughter because she might become attractive–though this probably happens to most fathers with beautiful daughters, who most often become protective of them, not abuse them. It’s all in who you are, if you’re a loving person, a morally good person, an unselfish one. Not whether or not you find can find children attractive. That is not the issue, and to suggest otherwise is rubbish. I’d say if anything, someone who can find a child attractive has a heightened, wider sense of beauty, and so may be more intellectually evolved in such perception.

The other honest issue, once we put all that aside and admit its validity, is the concern that acceptance of child pornography would lead to–and people don’t want to admit this, because doing so would be admitting that it’s natural–a tremendous rise in ephebophilia (already the norm as is evident in the most desirable age in legal porn being as close to 17 as possible–more than natural, and incredibly barbaric to prosecute on the basis of “she’s 17″), hebephilia (which is definitely natural, because this is when so-called “children” become sexually active, and actually initiate transcendence into what I’d call “juveniles”, a less loaded term than “children” which implies innocence and naivety, but rather a legal one that is the flip-side of the arbitrary line that separates it and what is legally and subjectively an “adult”), and pedophilia (which somehow covers, in the professional use of the word, the ENTIRE range of children including infants, to toddlers, to preteens, yet is a term applied incorrectly, politically and by the public, to mean right up to the subjective and geographically relative Age of Consent to invoke emotions of disgust and subvert rationality and reasonable discourse–definitely a product of witch hunt mode thinking). I personally believe the far latter is the only one that anyone should really give a total black and white perspective to, if we’re going to give such designation to things, because the other chronophilias are current grey areas that are treated as black and most definitely not black. I would say hebephilia is a truly grey area, though personally am open to considering that even in ages preceding, it can be grey. But in ephebophilia, it is most definitely, white. That doesn’t mean “abuse” can’t apply in said grey areas, that is why they’re grey. Maturity is relative. I refuse to believe that juveniles (a geographically relative distinction) in the ephebophilia range are not mature enough to make their own sexual decisions, and I do support adult-juvenile relationships in this regard. For example, when I was 17, I met my 15 year old high school sweetheart. When I turned 18, she was only 16. So essentially, I had started dating her legally, where I could have potentially engaged in intercourse with her, and then had to STOP as soon as a year had passed, to wait two years for her to catch up to barrier that divided us. Essentially, we dated for three years, broke up because I was deployed to Iraq, and THEN had sex when I was on leave, because she was now an adult. I mean, how absurd is that?

Anyway, if anyone, i.e. lawmakers, are at all concerned with *reality*, and what legalizing or allowing non-abuse “child pornography”, especially if not only fictitious representations (I refuse to consider such immoral in any way beyond being ‘thoughtcrime’ as any other form of art would be), correlates with, all they would have to do is look to, and study other countries that support it in its various real and fictitious forms. Sadly, any objective or scientific approach on this subject here in the United States is absolutely stigmatized and largely ignored.

Ultimately, I support the legalization and acceptance of mere possession of pornography of and adult sex with, and even marriage with (though, we have to fix our society which is brooding a divorce rate of something near 50% before that’s even sane, to be honest) *consensual*, uncoerced adolescents, regardless of geographical location. I may even support the legalization of pornography (defining pornography here as anything potentially lewd, regardless of whether or not it is meant to be) of even younger subjects. I’m undecided, in terms of real subjects, but in terms of fictitious ones, I *ABSOLUTELY* do not believe this is illegal or should be illegal, for such a declaration would violate basic rights. In the realm of adolescents, and the progression into adulthood, if society was REALLY serious about this grey area, they’d define rules of courtship, but that gets into all sorts of controversy with sexist agendas, so, really, the solution is far from perfect. I’m just suggesting, urging, that laws concerning “child pornography” could be and NEED to be, far, far more sane, rational, and less blind. Blindness, crusading blindness, especially in terms of sexuality–which flows from the very core of the self and psyche, the only real truth worth heeding wisdom to there may even be–never got anyone anywhere very far without some sort of unhealthy sublimation of those repressed, natural desires–or, as quite often happens, wrongful prosecution of individuals seen not as individuals, but persecuted as a group of perpetrators. Indeed, a witch hunt.

Also, this shouldn’t need to be stated, but, fictitious representations of ANYTHING, drawn, painted, CGI, virtual reality, games, etc., that in no way involve real people, pornography or otherwise, should *never* be illegal, whether or not they “imply” (another word that could be and IS, totally stretched) a child being involved. No one should be able to be put in jail because of a drawing, regardless of what it is or pertains to, unless that drawing was literally you or someone sitting there, with a canvas, watching an act of ABUSE, real abuse, as in unconsensual, drawing it. Which probably has never happened, ever. Yet I think to convict someone on the basis that a drawing “could” be just this, would be absurd, and would require reasonable evidence, not just “it looks realistic”. Art, in the form of images outside of photography that presents real and somehow violated people, in any case, is freedom of expression essentially equivalent to freedom of speech, or press. Period. I’m not saying they have to be allowed in the public, but privately? Such is equivalent to freedom of belief, to me, fundamentally. ESPECIALLY when it comes to nonphotographic images. I don’t think this is up for debate, unless we interested in enabling an Orwellian dystopia. Someone losing their career, or children if they have any, over an obviously fictitious drawing that is interpreted by a judge and/or jury behind closed doors as “child pornography”, whether the subject at hand in the artwork be considered “small breasted” but otherwise proportionate to an adult yet still “implying intent” of something below the age of consent (yes, this happens), or that subject in the artwork being similar to a child, or even obviously meant to be a child, entailing that it is somehow related in any way to actual abuse or victimization of anyone, I would think would be outrageous to the general, thinking public and hopefully illuminating of the reality of things as they stand right now with views about the persecution of so-called pedophilia, and chronophiles in general. Also, remember, these are loaded definitions. Chronophilia implies *preference*. I.e., you can find a single child attractive, and otherwise not find children attractive, and not be a pedophile… You can find drawings of somewhat unrealistic children arousing, like in the case of anime, and not real children whatsoever, and not be a pedophile. Things are not as black and white as people make things out to be, always remember that when someone says there are only two sides to something, for or against, or, you’re this, or you’re that.

Pedophilia: “(in psychiatry) a psychosexual disorder in which the fantasy or act of engaging in sexual activity with prepubertal children is the PREFERRED OR EXCLUSIVE [my emphasis] means of achieving sexual excitement and gratification. It may be heterosexual or homosexual.”

So, a question is, does a fictitious drawing of an “underage” character, that has no age or sentience or what have you, outside of the mere idea and representation of their imaginary age, that exists in an imaginary world such as anime, a “person”, and thus even possibly, or most definitely, a victim? And thus a “child”? And thus as good as real? Does it matter if they were abused? Does it matter this isn’t real child pornography, but insinuates even the thought of “it”? Even if, to you, it doesn’t insinuate or incite an idea in you of something that resembles or concerns the real world at all?

A judge in Australia literally believes so. He’s operating off the principle, of course, that the idea of “child” or “underage” is at play, and thus the real world be injected into the imaginary world. Thus, the imaginary world is under siege, and threatens to retaliate and take the real world under siege in return. That is this judge’s reasoning. Whether it’s a reasonable justification to imprison someone and place them on a sex offenders list for the rest of their life, is up to you. Well, not really. It’s up to whoever wants to prosecute you. It’s up to how that judge “feels” about you, or a stigma, and some more than likely “obvious” belief to them that doesn’t require further examination in their opinion, that previous generations or influences have instilled in him or her, which more than likely orbits around or shares some kind of influence from cultural taboo, and on this topic particularly: hysteria, and a refusal to consider any data or reality which would even consider a second-guessing of their judgement.

In fifty years, we likely will, according to people who are developing such technology, have the ability to record and view high definition imaging (videos) of our own dreams. This coupled with government’s obvious obsession for spying on its own citizens, invasion of privacy… coupled with banning depictions/viewing of fictional sexual displays of hysteria or whatever some agenda may in the future make illegal… coupled with the promise of advancement in neurological nanotechnology and already existing wireless transmission capabilities, enabling the ability to share dreams with each other, and the realization that all of this might not be an “option” but that it’s actually believable and likely that we’ll all be forced into some kind of mind network for the convenience of government agenda sold to or mandated for the public as “cool, exciting technology!” like android phones that are used to track our every move… Seriously just imagine when your dreams are being monitored, and you actually subconsciously “commit” (it being subconscious or conscious being totally at the discretion of whoever is behind the surveillance) viewing through your own eyes, possible interpretations of enactments of these so-called crimes.

Now couple that with the reasoning that dreams can be lucid and controlled, or can be construed to be “to some degree conscious”, and willful.

It’s already pretty much happening. When your dreams aren’t private, can be recorded, stored, distributed, shared, when they’re not private, what is? When they have the capability to monitor your dreams, what’s to stop them from monitoring your thoughts?

That has much wider implications than the concern it should cause someone who could in any way have elements of pedophilia in their consciousness or subconscious, i.e., illegal thoughts to in any way have representational manifestation viewable by others in reality, according to the judge above. It’s scary on all accounts, because what the judge is ultimately in his stringent effort to not allow the “gateway” to *actual* child pornography, or child abuse in any way (understandable), or the support of having an idea of the idea of child abuse, or in this case, simply child porn that is in no way abusive, but can have imaginary lines drawn from it through imaginary and subjective interpretations of various definitions back to this judge’s fear of any shred of possibility of an adult fantasizing about sexuality in children being in way permissible, stemming from their own fear of the innate possibility within himself that he or she (most likely he) refuses to acknowledge or even look at it, in fear that it, an understanding, might be there–in effort to not allow this perceived “gateway” to this realization within himself, he actually opens the door and gateway for anyone or any government to take his judgement and contort it to apply to our dreams, freedom of expression, and ultimately, our thought, through this conduit and powerful tool of making-you-look-the-other-way.

I think this is essential to the discussion of child pornography, and that the discussion of the legality of child pornography, in both the distinctions of real or fictitious/imaginary, is both vital and dangerous to the state of our very fundamental rights as human beings.

admin says:

Like or Dislike: 00

Thanks for the long comment.

Your link to the mind reading dream analyzer is enlightening. Imagine you dream about underage sex, and thus engage in child porn production and victimize a child (that has no clue s/he is being victimized). Off to prison, to be really raped in the true awake world.

By the “guilty for creating a cp marketplace” theory, all those who download CP for free will not promote the market. That of course could be a solution (if anyone wanted to solve it) to the CP problem: Just allow all old grandfathered CP. So no new market gets created. And less children get victimized: as Professor Milton Diamond has clearly demonstrated, freely available CP reduces child abuse rates.

I did write on the absurdity of your sweetheart issue. Of sex being legal, and on the elder’s birthday becoming illegal. What a cruelty, what an absurdity.

Thomas says:

Like or Dislike: 00

Hey, admin? Part of my email is visible to the public (and I’d rather not state how, out of concern for keeping it confidential). Website stated it would not be published. Can I have my comment, and this one, removed? Thanks. If you can somehow solve the issue by changing my email address in the comment field to some random jibberish, and it updates where it is displayed, I’d be okay with it, and encouraged to reply to your response.

John Smith says:

Like or Dislike: 00

It is such a tricky issue even for those of us who are minor attracted. From my perspective, I can understand the arguments about victimisation, but I am not sure it is quite as they claim. I would not be quite so horrified if pics of my naked, childish self were freely available. If I were being sexually assaulted in the pic, that is a different matter, but consensual sex (trying to ignore the laws on AoC)? Not sure if I’d be really that bothered, especially in this world of vanishing privacy. Young people these days are getting well used to creating sexually explicit pics and videos themselves.

It may be that those who detest minor attracted people inflate the trauma. Where are the multiple studies showing the level of harm done in later years to people whose pics were taken when they were children? If they exist, we need to see them.

And, of course, there is the ongoing problem that only perps and law enforcement have seen CP, so how can anyone else evaluate it? Most people think CP consists of pics of children being raped, with the attacker laughingly relishing the child’s distress and pain. Does it really? I’m pretty sure it doesn’t.

Ultimately, I see the furore over child porn as somewhat hypocritical, in a society like the USA or UK in whcih people pay to watch young people or adults beat each other to a pulp in the boxing ring. Yes, consensual, but so what? It is still utterly bizarre and sick, given a few minutes’ thought. And of course, the USA and UK are first and fourth in the weapons exporting business. Those weapons are all naturally child friendly in places like Bahrain and Kazakhstan.

admin says:

Like or Dislike: 00

Good points. None of us can watch CP without risking 20 years in prison. If you read my posts in the ChildPorn category, you can, though, get a good idea what child porn is. Read about the copine scale, for example.

Duke Nukem says:

Like or Dislike: 00

Agreed with admin, good article. My points:

About child porn market:
Of course “market” is market if there are financial transactions. I.e. it can be supported only with money otherwise it is not a market. And buying child porn (or at least new child porn) should be illegal. But do not overestimate the problem: most of child porn is produced not because of money but as a “home video”. And “child porn” that is produced for money often is not porn at all. E.g. notorious Azov Films that was busted in Canada not long ago and that caused scandal in Germany was about nudism, not porn, not sex. But LEA call it child porn anyway. Or dressed (not naked) girls like CandyDolls produced and legal in Japan would be called child porn in many countries because of provocative poses. But i don’t think that there are any victims there. And btw in US relative LEA departments who fight with this “inhuman” child porn have huge budgets, bigger than those who fight with terrorism. While usual taxpayers have no legal ability to check what “porn” they are fighting with and what is child porn at all because simple viewing/possession is highly punishable.
So, when people say about child porn “market” they do not know what they are talking about. In practice as i said there is no huge commercial market, and people are mostly talking about freely spreading content on the internet. Well, i agree, that by reducing the amount of consumers of this free content you can reduce the amount of spreading content itself because they create demand and means to spread this content further. The same way if you eliminate all pedophiles you will almost eliminate really pornographic child porn because those pedophiles create demand by the simple fact of their existence. Or the same way if you eliminate all blacks you will reduce crime rates by 80% because (*need to check this) this amount of crimes is committed by blacks. But here is the problem: you cannot eliminate people before they committed a crime. And creating demand itself is not a crime. You can argue that child porn is such a huge deal that tries to reduce it worth eliminating problematic people before they committed real crime which is in this case increasing child porn amount on the internet. But is it the child porn itself that is a real danger or people forgot about primary goal to reduce the number of real child molestations.
First, reducing child porn amount does not prevent molestations. Dudes in that porn would have sex with kids anyway even if you fully eliminate internet. Because they are doing it not because of money but because they like it and porn itself is just a collateral product, “home video”.
Second, many of them are being caught thanks to those videos. For example i remember a case when a woman molesting her daughter was found just a few days after the video she made appeared on public. So even if fighters with child porn achieved their goal and eliminated all child porn, the kids being actively molested or who will be molested in the future would not even be known to be molested. In this case eliminating child porn is just making yourself blind and saying: i do not see the problem hence it does not exist.
Third, do not mess things. Nowadays hysteria about child porn misses the real goal which is protecting real kids. Child porn itself is not bad or good, it is just information. And the question is how it affects real kids in the end. As it is said in the article there is research that availability of porn lowers the rate of sexual crimes. Also i’ve seen a research with conclusion that people who consume child porn molest kids about as rare as other people and much less than ex-offenders. I.e. if a man watches child porn and is not an ex-offender then there is no evidence that he will molest child. Now suppose child porn fighters take him and put in jail for 10 years and put in sex offender registry for life. Will this man become safer for the society or vice versa, he will become more dangerous for the society including kids? I am saying that child porn has become a devil criminal thing in itself while the real problem – molesting kids became even less significant comparing to child porn. It is not good. If you want to protect real kids you should ask how reasonable is it to give child porn possessors such huge terms and ruin their whole life making them more desperate and dangerous for the society. Maybe it is better to make them pay fines or give small sentences, i.e. give them warning that they are on the wrong way. Or do not touch them at all, if it is true that possession of child porn actually leads to lower sexual crime rate, this hypothesis should be further investigated.
Finally, child porn consumers (non commercial) do not increase the amount of shared content just by consuming itself. They will increase the amount only via distributing the content. You can say that they will distribute it further sooner or later but it is a punishment before real crime happened. The fact of distribution should be proved. And if you are saying that child porn itself is such a dangerous thing that people’s life can be ruined just because of downloading pics from the internet then you are fighting with windmills since even if by such rude actions you’ll lower the amount of child porn on the internet you’ll never make it zero. You just have to admit that it is just an information and it is much more important to focus on real kids and stop this mad witch hunt. I am sure in 50 years people will be really surprised that their ancestors focused so much on collateral effect and ruined people’s life, actually making society worse.

About Voodoo magic:
Of course it does not exist. I understand that people depicted in child porn can be frustrated knowing that somebody jerks to it, but nothing can be done here: something put into internet will be there forever. They can demand jailing people who distribute it but jailing people who possess it makes more harm than good. If i was raped and the video leaked to the internet i would not demand people who downloaded it to be jailed, only those who distribute it. Because no matter how many people you jail somebody also has a copy. If magical technology existed that allowed erase all copies of the video i would use it but there is no such technology. If i knew that there is the last copy left i’d just demanded to erase it, not jail the possessor of it. LEA try to jail them just because they want to make others to fear to download it and so get rid of it, but we know that even if you jail 95% of those who possess it there is still 5% who possess it and probably distribute further, so jailing possessors just does not make sense and makes more harm to the society.
Actually there is one mechanism that can explain the Voodoo magic. LEA in US are obligated to inform the victim if they find a dude who owns child porn with this victim and the victim is known. But they can find him (search his computer) because of the law that is motivated by this same re-victimization argument. I.e. they can find and jail the dude because as they say possession itself re-victimizes the victim, then they go to the victim and actually re-victimize the victim. They do not make life better neither for the victim nor for the possessors. Only fighters for morals are happy here. And LEA since they get bigger budgets to “fight” with re-victimization while actually performing this re-victimization with each new perv they caught. It is madness.

To conclude all this subject about child porn which is just a collateral effect of real kids molestations (and for a man outside of current child porn or child sexuality stigma is not more shocking than vids with beheaded women), all this subject is hugely, enormously exaggerated today which in turn leads to suffering of real people, both victims and non-criminal “quite” pervs. Collateral damage is huge: self-shooting minors, young people in Rome and Juliet cases, people being criminalized, jailing to tens of years and left without career perspectives just because they downloaded pics from the internet.
I do not see any single strong argument why possession should be punished, especially punished so harshly. The only real motivation is that most of the people are really pissed off with the simple fact of child porn existence and seek any reason to punish those pervs who perturb their feeling of the rightness. So all the witch hunt is based on morals, not on real harm, while the damage of inculcation morals this way is unproportionally huger comparing to the real damage those child porn possessors bring. I am sad to witness all this madness myself.

alex says:

Like or Dislike: 00

Just found this website and am glad to see people having a rational discussion about child pornography. Unfortunately my life was changed in 2010 because of choices I made in 2009. Though due to the sluggishness of the United States federal government my official prosecution did not begin until 2012.

Initially my indictment contained two charges; receipt and possession of child pornography. Oddly (meaning contrary to what someone would expect a federal government to do) if I agreed to the plea agreement the prosecution would move to dismiss the more serious charge of receipt which carried a mandatory five year minimum in federal prison. My defense attorney recommended I take the plea and considering I paid her 20,000 dollars with an understanding if I wanted to go to trial it would cost 10 to 15 thousand more, taking the plea was my best option. For anyone not aware sex offenses cases in the United States are fairly pricey for defendants if they want a decent lawyer. One guy I encountered during the pretrial process had already spent 100,000 on his defense. So all things considered my legal fees were cheap. The result of my case was 24 months imprisonment and five years supervised release. Plus because of the state in which I live life time registration.

Backing up I want to provide insight into the mysterious content known as child pornography. Though before doing so I must warn everyone that I am choosing my language carefully as not to describe anything in such a way that it could be a violation of any law. Merely describing child porn is in many places a crime. So it’s no surprise that falsehoods are spread regarding it because nobody really has any legal authorization to verify any claims made. Sound and well done/presented research on CP is basically impossible to do without potentially incurring legal trouble because any direct unofficially authorized access to this content is treated as a serious offense in many countries. I would love to see what would happen if a research group wrote a government asking for permission to receive and possess child pornography. Actually I don’t know if anyone has ever tried asking for permission before.

One last thing I am a virgin with no relationship, dating, or physical intimate experience with another person. I am currently in my late twenties and didn’t know that I was doing anything illegal at age 22/23 in 2009 until federal agents nearly busted my door in 2010 when they showed up in swat gear and a helicopter patrolling the neighborhood to execute their search warrant.

Okay so in the end the federal government calculated that I had nearly 10,000 images and over 200 videos against the law in my possession on an external hard drive. To be honest I also had according to my lawyer over 3000 adult videos and about 60,000 images of child erotica. At the time I did not know what child erotica was and still don’t fully grasp the concept as anything other than bulletin. Anyway it’s legal in the United States, but it was used by the government to claim I had an interest in children. Which thanks to a 3000 dollar mental health evaluation by an expert on sexual misconduct was disproved, but the judge was not convinced that the tests used cleared me from having pedophile attractions. Well that judge can go eff himself and shove a more recent test down his throat showing as far as socially acceptable attractions I fall towards mostly being attracted to female adults and with a slight attraction to pubescent female youths which is normal for a heterosexual adult male.

Child pornography is many things, but most importantly it is primarily not actual pornography. Such a label aides in sexualizing those depicted and results in greater harm by fostering the notion of exploitation, abuse, and yes victimization. What most people don’t realize is that governments are admitting that child and adolescent sexuality is real by labeling content featuring them in various states of undress as pornographic. Also troubling is describing preteens and teens being shown exploring their bodies as sexual. Sure if a prepubescent girl is massaging her external genitals (vulva) or God forbid has discovered she can put a bit of her finger into her vagina and moving it around makes her feel good, a more informed individual would see that as masturbation. But would it serve any beneficial purpose in explaining this to her and thus opening up a can of worms on sexual topics, I wager that could be more harmful to proper sexual development than most are willing to admit.

Consent is a tricky issue even among of age participants so I will only say that I never dared look at anything that appeared non consenusal. I am not saying I don’t believe evidence of true exploitation, molestation, and rape don’t exist only that I never personally saw anything I could rationally say we’re examples of those things. Though with a history as a video editor (no I did not work on porn, my name has appeared on television as an editor and assistant editor) I know all too well how video, audio, and photo editing can easily distort what really happened. So where CP is concerned the best approach to understanding what wrongs if any were done is to speak with those involved directly after engaging in the acts they just partook in. This is in most cases impossible because most “child pornography” has been circulating for years. The reason for confirming wrong done directly after an event is that as more time passes perceptions change and memory warps. Though point blank asking someone especially a child if they are hurt or feel uncomfortable as a result of what just happened might infer in the child’s mind that something bad did occur. Rather simply asking how they feel and/or what they are thinking will provide an accurate answer.

If anything an underage teenager on webcam masturbating is more pornographic than most other things called child pornography. Though legally children teenagers of normal development and functioning are as informed about sex as adults. Depending upon how adventurous and curious someone is, in certain cases a teen might be more knowledgeable about sex because they are more engaged in it. So for the really progressive people out there let’s call this content adolescent pornography. In reality that is exactly what it is. Should it be legal? I won’t make that call because no standard exists for testing whether or not those involved actually gave consent. Now there is a gray area here because of the possible onset of earlier development prior to age 13. With more instances of preteen girls getting their first menstrual period in elementary or primary school some of them are very well developed by 12 or 13. I don’t have answer on how to address pubescent preteens and them being more sexually aware/curious because of an earlier onset of puberty. Though it must be fully researched and added into the larger picture.

Most of I remember possessing were simple nude images and videos. Naturally some of the content showed girls under age 12. Which was one of four or five ridiculous enhancements applied in my case. I mean from a mathematical standpoint and I am bad at math (thanks learning disability), of course there will be more content featuring those under 12. Think about the selection pool (used for lack better terminology), 0-12 and 13 up to day before 18. Which group is larger? The 0 to 12 group of course. The odds are stacked against the 13 to nearly 18 group because there are fewer of them in the world than 0 to 12 year olds. A line generally towed is that certain nudity is more sexual than other nudity because of how someone is posed and how detailed the depiction is. From whose perspective is it more sexual? And what sort of asinine logic is this? Either someone is naked or they aren’t and they are clearly doing something sexual or they are not. In photos this is particularly problematic because a photo is the frozen snapshot of one moment in time. Anyone who has the slightest bit of sense knows a snapshot can be extremely deceptive. Though what about a set or series of images? Still get the same problem in not knowing what time actually passed between two images or which directions were given between them. Despite appearing to be in close sequential order there might be significant gaps. I bring up time passage because apparent intent is different from true intent. Just because a woman has a vibrator on her clitoris or a dildo inserted into her vagina does not mean she is really masturbating in an image. Adult porn sets up apparent sexual situations for photoshoots, but there’s no way any real activity will take place in the photos. Video is a far more effective tool for showing movement and it would be a waste of human resources (the performers) to go all out in images. In other words good luck proving any true sexual activity in photos. When talking about nudity and sexual activity people often associate them as two halves of a whole. Both can and do exist independently of each other and in part the over sexualized nature of social culture in many countries has blurred the line. Breasts are a good example. How sexist is it for societies to declare an exposed female chest after a certain developmental point as a body part that ought to be covered? Yet males are not restricted in having the same requirements. As an aside I am not advocating a topless revolution and don’t view female breasts with the same level of sexual significance or interest as other men do. No this is about equality. Speaking of which the biased view of nudity or more specifically graphic nudity being always sexual falls apart by looking to main stream movies. In recent years closeups of the penis and testicles have appeared in comedies as comedic devices. Clearly those were not sure sexual situations and yes they were scripted, but that proves people can conceptually view sexual or reproductive organs non sexually. I can’t think of the last time I saw the vulva make a similar appearance and well forget about seeing into the vaginal canal. Granted we are talking about adult graphic nudity being non sexual and nobody better claim it’s impossible for graphic nudity showing those under the age of consent to not be sexual. Do so and start digging your own grave because the train of logic used leads to concluding adults must be less sexual if they can appear in more non sexual situations than children and adolescents. Which would probably be the craziest batshit thing to say regarding sexuality. Got it! Medical and education videos can show non sexual graphic nudity featuring the vagina.

Now I did not keep track of what I had. So even with nearly ten thousand illegal images and over two hundred videos not a single one triggered a response from anyone depicted in them. Meaning I did not victimize anyone by viewing the content I had. As I found out through conversation with my attorney in many cases dealing with child pornography the federal government notifies an identified victim that someone has once again received or possessed something depicting them. How’s that for fucked up? Maybe I am too stupid to understand the concept of moving on and getting over past bad events in life, but this seems like the last thing anyone would want. Hey here’s another reminder that you went through something terrible and don’t worry we caught the person who who saw your ordeal ten years afterwards. Best news you are within your right as a victim to seek restitution. More often than not these notices go to the always on call lawyer for the victim. Thankfully in some places the “victim” can opt out of being notified and truly move on.

Lastly the time has come to share stuff about cp that can only be gained by having watched it.

1. While I did not view any videos or images of men having sex underage girls it’s possible there was one example of a girl and a woman. Not being interested in watching men and women have sex (I know kinda uncommon) means logically I would not seek out content of any male and female interacting sexually.

2. Incest porn and child porn are not always the same. Nor is incest always between males and females. The notion that most child molestation and rape happens as a result of someone the child knows does not translate well to child pornography, at least not among the content I saw or downloaded. I could count on one hand the number of times it was clear that the person on screen had a close relationship with the person holding the camera. The only possible example of incest was the previously mentioned girl and woman. Who might have been mother and daughter, but the video was old and of poor quality so I could not say for sure.

3. A child can experience sexual pleasure. Let’s just say in some videos including a few webcam captures I ran across the girl’s in each video would not be doing what they were to themselves if they were getting nothing out of it. Does this mean we should allow videos of children or teens doing these things all over the internet? No it does not, however criminalizing their behavior is not a valid approach either. Also in no way does this mean we should encourage self body exploration. Let whatever is going happen and don’t screw with the natural course of discovery.

4. Turns out menstruation is taboo in child porn too. Sorry if anyone is uncomfortable talking about menstrual periods grow up. What is more controversial than a girl’s very first menstrual period? How about seeing what it is really like for its entire length. Not talking about the girl being interviewed, actually getting closeup up and seeing the whole thing in all it’s bloody detail. As well as a dialogue throughout with the girl expressing her thoughts and feelings. Granted I would not expect 24/7 closeup coverage, but a number of hours each day would suffice. I did not ever run into anything close to what I described above and maybe that’s a problem. See the heart of female sexuality revolves around the menstrual cycle and not being open about the menstrual cycle creates all manner of bad consequences I.E. a largely uninformed male population. When roughly half the human species is in the dark about a vital part of human reproduction there’s a major problem. I might have seen a short clip where a young teenager was methodically inserting an appropriate object (it’s designed for the way she was using it) into herself. A few minutes in she began bleeding a little bit. One of two things happened; she was doing this for the first time and finally got the object in far enough to break her hymen or her period unexpectedly started. The video was too short to determine which was true. Anyone wanting to see all the bloody details of menstrual periods can find images and videos of women being bold enough to reveal what they go through. It’s not as nasty or horrible as made out to be. If anyone is super lucky and has a girlfriend or wife asking really nicely for educational purposes might get them to slowly be more open about it.

5. Only one video I ever saw that was not a webcam was clearly made with the intent to arouse. Text at the beginning said in completely plain language what the producers goal was. I felt like they were daring anyone watching to not become aroused. Like most straight men I absolutely love watching two women pleasure each other. This video contained five segments featuring a total of six to eight girls. Most were teens with one or two being younger. In a playful manner they interacted being careful not to advance beyond foreplay. I will admit it was incredible watching them play and while none of them were super attractive the teens were cute for their stage of development. Contrary to popular belief sometimes being average is more than enough to bring about a response.

I am one person and am no more perfect or flawed than anyone else. Unlike most I questioned the world around me and stumbled upon darker mysteries which led to finding what I did. Was my personal search for true unbiased understanding morally wrong? No I don’t believe it was and sadly I realized how complicated my questions were, but never got to answer them. Though that’s why I posted this here to add to the conversation so maybe one day society can rationally resolve the root problem of letting objectionable things happen and then dealing with them after the fact. I broke a federal statute in the United States and lost my right to pretend to not know what is going on.

alex says:

alex says:

Like or Dislike: 00

Okay that worked.

Let me big in with some facts:

I am a guy in his late twenties who has zero relationship, dating, or physical sexual experience with another human being. I am heterosexual but have not ever kissed a girl/woman or seen a female naked in person. My lack of experience is not for religious reasons as I am not religious at all. For simplicity I will say I prefer a natural, but far slower approach in getting to know women. Not even considering a relationship until after causally spending time together and it’s clear we both want to learn more about the other person. Then later after an ordinary (boring for some) baseline has been established is when I might start considering becoming more intimate slowly checking along the way that my partner is at the same comfort level.

Contrary to all that I managed in two thousand nine (two thousand ten from the United States federal government’s perspective) to unknowingly break federal law. My illegal activity was having a hard drive that contained child porn. The final government calculation was close to 10,000 images and 200+ videos. I didn’t ever keep track of what I had or even gave any thought that my possession of those files was not legal.

Before going on about those files I need to discuss something else that was on my external drive even though in the end it was not illegal or most of it was not. In the summer of 2008 I was 22 and came across a teenage model who had hundreds of image sets and tens of thousands of images going back to a very young age. From one perspective they represented a decent though not complete overview of her life to date. It took me a while to realize the benefits of having so much data regarding the growth of an individual. Often people are concerned with who someone is or how they became who they are. I am more interested in asking what about people make others pay more or less attention to them.

The absence of a physical characteristic, personality trait, or ability to understand something is just as important as the presence of those things. For example I don’t have the ability to understand astrophysics because my grasp of standard physics is not where it needs to be. So of course I have little incentive to try engaging in a highly scientific conversation with an astrophysicist because most of it would be like listening to a foreign language. Using the teenage model as a basis for building a foundation to ask questions about who might be interested in someone because of something they have or don’t have at different stages in life I hoped to provide a line of insight into understanding human attraction. More importantly I hoped to establish a framework where others could look at a given set of human characteristics and cross reference those against all everyone interviewed/surveyed to determine who is interested those characteristics.

Why would anyone want to do this? Think about what geographical and socio-economic facts can be revealed on a global scale. If for example someone is into red heads but the closest concentration of red heads is 100 miles away that would be interesting to know. From a law enforcement perspective let’s say they are trying to catch a murderer with a specific known profile for his or her targets. Enter in all the info about the targets and see where at any scale (local, county, state, county, continental, or global) people with those qualities are. Reverse the search and see who has such an interest in those people that murder might be the goal. Expanding from individuals such a system could reveal what makes a group, company, organization, or government interested in another multi person entity.

If it was that straight forward events would have unraveled differently and with far less legal shenanigans to follow. Instead the data was more difficult to collect than originally thought and more mysterious. This model was not some random amateur who knew a photography enthusiast. It was a photographer who had a small studio and a girl who was happy to pose for pictures or be photographed doing everyday activities. The United States government claimed these photos were child erotica. I never saw anything erotic about the images and was not particularly interested in the model for her looks, she was average looking and sure she could be called cute. However cute does not necessarily translate into a greater level of interest or physical attraction, at least for me. What makes her images and at least one video of her controversial is at some point she was shown topless and fully naked. It added another plevel of data to analyze as well because without clothing additional physical features need to be taken into account. Almost simultaneously another oddity was brought up, some photo sets without any apparent reason were missing a few images or so the claim went. Being diligent and having too much time I wanted to get to the bottom of these supposed inconsistencies. By September 2008 I had acquired close to 70,000 images for free (I found out later the model and a few others with the photographer had monthly subscription sites), but I was not ever going to pay for this content. I also had five or six videos. I eventually found out that some image sets were missing anywhere from one to hundreds of images. One image set in particular was missing over 300 images. I kept finding slightly different versions of that one set and in the most complete version the final image was numbered 420 something. The least complete and officially available version according to the models’ previous website documentation had this set containing only 120 images. I never was able to answer the question of why someone would go through the trouble of creating images and watermarking them, but not officially releasing them. It made absolutely zero sense and still makes no sense. Some of the 300+ missing images showed the model lounging around in various states of undress, swimming in a private indoor pool nude, and eating an ice cream sundae without a bathing suit top on. Actually among her numbered image sets this one set #100 was one of two sets that contained nudity with the other being set 27 or something close to that number. At the time sets were in the mid to upper 200s. Sets 101 to 126 were crossover sets between the old site and the new one currently in operation at the time. The difference between the new and old versions of sets 101-126 were that the new versions contained a few less photos in some of those sets.

Everything got more messy when I found out that throughout the years special limited release sets had been put out. These often were older and more candid than the studio or posed sets. They had nude images and it was nearly impossible to determine which photos belonged with which sets because I had no clue where in the timeline they came from or how many images there were supposed to be. Also most of these came in fragments so there was no telling how diverse a set might be and if they were a cross between completely candid material and posed images. Then as a final wrench in everything I found out about holiday, bonus, and special event sexual sets or videos. In other words I couldn’t start proposing any questions about the data unless it was as complete as possible.

Right there I ran unknowingly into trouble. Let’s just say there is another article/analysis on this website that talks about what I found. After saying too much when federal agents questioned me in August 2010 in executing a search warrant I was even more careful in late 2011 when arrested and released on bail. Fast forward to early 2012 to me having a conversation with my privately hired attorney regarding my case. I mentioned what I thought was the name of the place I found most of the links to the illegal content identified by the government and we both agreed that it would be best for me to remain distant from that nightmare.

I will say the analysis provided by human stupidity was mostly correct and what nobody officially mentioned was the presence of a fair quantity of legal images and videos. I can say that as someone who had first hand knowledge of the basic layout/system in place. Beyond activities at tier two and below I had no idea what was going on. Let’s just say the person in charge was an asshole and I wasn’t going to put myself through lots of bullshit to gain access to something he supposedly had. My non participation eventually got the message across and I was gone.

I don’t remember exactly what I downloaded in 2009 vs what I saw. Nor do I specifically know which nearly 10,000 images or 200+ videos the government tagged as child porn. That being said my plea agreement lists a few examples and from those I can extrapolate what much of the illegal stuff was. Back in the early 2000s there was a European nude art modeling company that was busted as a suspected front for a child sex ring. Few or no charges were successfully brought against employees of the company mainly in part because many of the models (some preteens and many teens) all girls and their parents refused to press charges because in their minds/eyes nothing nefarious happened. I didn’t find this out until after downloading many image sets and videos produced by the company. I had downloaded most off a peer to peer network (yep pretty stupid), but not how the government in the good old USA busted me. Anyway as far as I knew once again nothing illegal or something to worry about. WRONG, of everything on the drive images from that company were cited as examples of CP and as a result the videos were likely seen as CP too. That likely covered most of the illegal content. Other possibilities are some of the 100 or so nude/topless photos of the model I mentioned before even though I never got confrontation one way or another on if anything in was pornographic and not just erotic as they labeled everything else.

I do know my drive contained no images or videos of any girl or woman being penetrated by a penis. Watching men and women interact sexually is not anything I have ever been into. So it makes sense that I would not seek out and avoid looking at sex between men and other groups as much as I could. There might have been one instance of a mother and her daughter doing something, but I don’t know if I downloaded it. One or two videos may have contained oral being performed. Though if there was contact between participants it was usually people of a close age group or one person touching themselves. Finally most masturbation was in webcam videos where I have no proof what age a teen might have been when she decided to record the video herself or not think enough about what getting naked live on webcam in a chat with dozens of people in it could mean.

Oh and on top of everything else according to my lawyer and the computer expert we hired the drive also had over 3000 adult videos. I didn’t count those ever either, but once I loaded about half or what I thought was,half into a media player and their duration alone was almost a month worth at watching 24/7. Yeah I had a lot of porn if I wanted to watch anything. All of it was either a woman alone, two or more women together, or videos where there was little or no sexual activity (certain fetish content for example can cross from being porn to erotica or a less well defined category).

The result of my case was 24 months incarceration and five years supervised release. Plus as a lucky resident of a state requiring lifetime registration, I get to deal with that too. No victims were ever named, heck I never paid much attention to the names of anyone in videos or photos I had because what would be the point. I never wanted to find anyone and in some cases stuff was decades old.

In closing I was caught because of a hacked website I didn’t remember visiting that had temporarily hosted child porn. Interpol somehow grabbed all the ip addresses that visited the site in the time it hosted cp and handed those off to the appropriate authorities. At least that’s the story I was fed, who knows it could have been a sting operation. I broke a federal law I admit that, but did I have to be subjected to all the other crap to teach me I made a mistake? Guess what child pornography is not the problem it’s a symptom to something that has existed since the dawn of human history. I don’t advocate or support ANY form of abuse, mistreatment, and exploitation, but I will not jump to conclusions or state something because that is a popular socially acceptable thing to do. We won’t ever resolve these things if we can’t rationally explore all their aspects. Hell if we can’t form a united global perspective on the most basic elements of human nature how do we expect to ever be able to prepare on a large scale to continue surviving between star systems or while colonizing other worlds in this solar system and distant solar systems?

admin says:

Like or Dislike: 00

@alex, I wish more victims of child porn laws were to speak up. I could give a space to them here. Thanks for your long reply. Keep posting and commenting. I might publish your long comment as a post here and comment on it.

You mention you did not know you were committing a crime by having mostly nude non violent pictures of post-pubertal adolescents. It is quite possible that not everyone is fully informed about our absurd adolescent “child” “porn”, and adolescent sexuality laws.

Additionally, these laws are biased against the less intelligent, less studious, and less informed. Highly educated, well read, people would at least KNOW about the laws they violate.

admin says:

now you have several posts approved and thus your next posts should be approved automatically.

Feel free to look for the category “child Porn” to find more to comment on.

You might also be interested to read about PUA (pick up artists) and Game (see my article about Elliot Rodger for a few links). I myself do not write about PUA.

I am planning to write an article about the 40 year old male virgin that does not inspire pity nor wishes to help the “loser” overcome his loneliness and suffering.

If you are lonely and socially inept, resort to porn, and end up with child porn prosecution, that is extremely sad and a prime example about the absurdity and cruelty of child porn laws.

I wish more child porn law victims like you reported here. Because this actually shows true innocent victims of these laws. I get a lot of flak for totally and almost opposing these legal witch hunts and wanting to totally abolish child porn laws (for violent child abuse during the production of seriously sick child porn, we already have laws on the book)

[…] police that grabbed him (as confessed by , as Trayvon Martin, and Rodney King were all called "victims" even though they all were committing felonies while killed or beaten (resist arrest, life […]